man vs animal (which one are we?)

[Ariadne]

Not too long ago (actaully only a few hours ago). I was in a lively debate with someone about what human beings are. We kept debating back and forth of what humankind is. He insisted humans are animals and do primitive things that animals are only known for doing such as making tools and resolving conflicts. That a lot of human behaviour is not very different from animals behaviour such as fight or flight instincts. So my question is; are humans animals or do humans transcend animals and are a species all their own. What do you think?

[Blessed]

That theory contradics the Quranic teachings. Allah has created Adam nEve (Xaawa) and that is where we, the humans come from. This humans are animals arguement was theorised by Darwin who thought that life began with the star fish..!! Centuaries later, there is nothing to support this racist little theory.

[Ariadne]

Ameenah: thanks for your input. The starfish? I thought it was a single cell monera he theorized began all life on this planet. What surpirsed me is how anyone could think man is an animal; when animals don't think things over, analyze, or even curiously wonder. These traits are uniquely human and must mean animals and humans aren't one and the same.

[N.O.R.F]

these age old theories are more or less designed to go against the Quranic teachings in the hope of finding a common ground in order for ppl to refer to rather than follow religious teachings.

 

sadly these theories have been passed down thru out the generations with many ppl believing in certain ideologies that are way off the mark, u can say just to be differeent, without a basis or any kind of evidence what so ever!

[Baashi]

So my question is; are humans animals or do humans transcend animals and are a species all their own. What do you think?

We are not Animals..we are "Insaan"..axsanna taqwiimi. It is true that we got a lot in common with animals than plants...and it is Ok to group, not equate, humans with animals to facilitate understanding.

 

But, in schools, they taught us with vigor, that we are cousins of chimpanzees (spelling?) and distant relative of Oratanges...and ur not supposed to question Darwin as it is "scientific" If we are to get A+ in Anthropolgy we better confirm the theory that life come to being by chance..life has no purpose and there is no intelligent design behind it...it happened by chance :Super Nova...big bang and then four essential elements reacted in perfect unisom and boom! first microorganism appeared million years ago..what a crap.

 

Bottom line..we are not animals, we share several traits with animals..use that for classification purposes but don't stretch it to metaphysics.

[Ariadne]

I just realized it's very hard to debate something when everyone is arguing on the same side as you. Maybe I should go on the defensive to try to liven this up a bit.

 

Northerner: Indeed, it is to beat religion out of the human mind and instill science (we came to be scientifically....is what's taught to young children)

 

Baashi: yes, we aren't animals, but at the same time we are very similar to some animals to an extent. For example did you know 99.9 % of human DNA is junk DNA because we share it with chimps?

 

To clarify some things; I am not an advocate of Darwinism or man as animal theories that still exist today. I thought this would be a good debate topic. Turns out... I was wrong, everyone is debating on the same side.

[Baashi]

S.O.S,

So u wanna play the devil's advocate on this heh Let's see how well we can employ deductive reasoning...I will start!

 

Baashi: yes, we aren't animals, but at the same time we are very similar to some animals to an extent. For example did you know 99.9 % of human DNA is junk DNA because we share it with chimps?

True.. Chimpanzees may have identical DNA as humans but what does that tell u? U can't conclude that we are same cuz we have same building blocks...or u would risk, by logical extension, that all living things are same as well cuz they all share elemental property!

 

How about the apparent differences: We don't look alike, we don't behave alike, above all they lack intellect...intellect is a faculty only endowed to us...humans.

[Che -Guevara]

Man can't be compared to animals since we are creatures of thought. It is our brain that differs us from every other living thing. As for human DNA having similaraties with primates,

I think this following piece might help clarify some staff. It is by Harun Yahya.

The piece is about human genome project.

 

THE APE-MAN SIMILARITY IS A TALE!

 

The completion of human's gene map today does not yield the result that man and ape are relatives. One need not be deceived by evolutionists' attempts to exploit this new scientific development just as they do with all others.

 

As known, the recent completion of the human gene map within the scope of the Human Genome Project has been a very important scientific improvement. However, some results of this project are being distorted in some evolutionist publications. It is claimed that the genes of chimpanzees have a similarity to human genes by 98 % and this is promoted as an evidence to the claim that apes are close to humans, and therefore, to the theory of evolution. In truth, this is a "fake" evidence put forward by evolutionists who benefit from the lack of knowledge of society about this subject.

 

 

 

98 % Similarity Claim is a Misleading Propaganda

 

First, it should be stated that the 98% similarity concept, frequently advanced by evolutionists about the DNAs of man and chimpanzee, is deceptive.

 

In order to claim that the genetic make-ups of man and chimpanzee bear 98 % similarity, the genome of the chimpanzee also has to be mapped just as that of man's, the two has to be compared, and the result of this comparison has to be obtained. However no such result is available, because so far, only the gene of mankind has been mapped. No such research is yet done for the chimpanzee.

 

In reality, the 98 % similarity between the genes of man and ape, which now and then becomes an agenda item, is a propaganda oriented slogan deliberately invented years ago. This similarity is an extraordinarily exaggerated generalisation grounded on the similarity in the amino acid sequences of some 30-40 basic proteins present in man and chimpanzee. A sequence analysis has been made with a method named "DNA hybridization" on the DNA sequences that are correlated with these proteins and only those limited number of proteins have been compared.

 

However there are about hundred thousand genes, and therefore 100 thousand proteins coded by these genes in humans. For that reason, there is no scientific basis for claiming that all the genes of man and ape are 98 % similar only because of the similarity in 40 out of 100.000 proteins.

 

On the other hand, the DNA comparison carried out on those 40 proteins is also controversial. This comparison was made in 1987 by two biologists named Sibley and Ahlquist and published in the periodical named Journal of Molecular Evolution. (v.26 pp. 99-1212) However another scientist named Sarich who examined the data obtained by these two scientists concluded that the reliability of the method they used is controversial and that the data has been exaggeratedly interpreted. (Sarich et al, 1989, Cladisticts 5:3-32) Dr. Don Batten, another biologist, also analysed the issue in 1996 and concluded that the real similarity rate is 96.2%, not 98 %. (CEN, 19(1); 21-22 December 1996-February 1997)

 

 

 

Human DNA is also similar to that of the worm, mosquito and chicken!

 

Moreover, the above mentioned basic proteins are common vital molecules present in various other living beings. The structure of the same kinds of proteins present not only in chimpanzee, but also in completely different living beings, is very similar to that in the humans.

 

For example, the genetic analyses published in New Scientist have revealed a 75 % similarity between the DNAs of nematode worms and man. (New Scientist, 15 May 1999, p.27) This definitely does not mean that there is only a 25% difference between man and these worms! According to the family tree made by evolutionists, the Chordata phylum, in which man is included, and Nematoda phylum were different from each other even 530 million years ago.

 

On the other hand, in another finding which also appeared in the Turkish media, it was stated that the comparisons carried out between the genes of fruit fly belonging to the Drosophila species and human genes yielded a similarity of 60%. (Hürriyet, 24 February 2000)

 

On the other hand, the analyses done on some proteins show man as close to some very different living beings. In a survey carried out by the researchers in Cambridge University, some proteins of land dwelling animals were compared. Amazingly, in nearly all samples, man and chicken were paired as the closest relatives. The next closest relative was crocodile. (New Scientist v.103, 16 August 1984, p.19)

 

Another example used by evolutionists on "the genetic similarity between man and ape", is the presence of 48 chromosomes in chimpanzees and gorillas versus 46 chromosomes in man. Evolutionists regard the closeness of the number of chromosomes as indication of an evolutionary relationship. However, if this logic used by evolutionists were true, then man should have an even closer relative than chimpanzee: "the potato"!. Because the number of chromosomes in potatoes is the same as that of man: 46

 

These examples certify that the concept of genetic similarity does not constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. This is because the genetic similarities are not in line with the alleged evolution schemes, and on the contrary, they yield completely opposite results.

 

 

 

Genetic Similarities Upset the "Evolution Scheme" that is Sought to be Constituted

 

Unsurprisingly, when the issue is evaluated as a whole, it is seen that the subject of "bio-chemical similarities" does not constitute an evidence for evolution, but on the contrary leaves the theory in the lurch. Dr. Christian Schwabe, a biochemistry researcher from the Medical Faculty of South Carolina University, is an evolutionist scientist who has spent years to find evidence for evolution in the molecular domain. He particularly did researches on insulin and relaxin-type proteins and tried to establish evolutionary relationships between living beings. However, he had to confess for many times that he could not find any evidence for evolution at any point in his studies. In an article published in Science magazine, he said;

 

"Molecular evolution is about to be accepted as a method superior to palaeontology for the discovery of evolutionary relationships. As a molecular evolutionist I should be elated. Instead it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies; so many in fact that I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the more important message" (Christian Schwabe, "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution", Trends in Biochemical Sciences. V.11, July 1986)

 

Based on the recent findings obtained in the field of molecular biology, the renowned biochemist Prof. Michael Denton made the following comments;

 

"Each class at molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by intermediates. Thus, molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology… At a molecular level, no organism is "ancestral" or "primitive" or "advanced" compared with its relatives… There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been available a century ago… the idea of organic evolution might never have been accepted." (Michael Denton, Evolution; A Theory in Crisis, London; Burnett Books 1985 pp.290-291)

 

 

 

Similarities are not Evidence for Evolution but for Creation

 

It is surely natural for the human body to bear some molecular similarities to other living beings, because they all are made up of the same molecules, they all use the same water and atmosphere, and they all consume foods consisting of the same molecules. Certainly, their metabolisms and therefore genetic make-ups would resemble to one another. This, however, is not evidence that they evolved from a common ancestor.

 

This "common material" is not the result of an evolution but of "common design", that is, their being created upon the same plan.

 

It is possible to explain this subject with an example; all constructions in the world are done with similar materials (brick, iron, cement, etc.). This, however, does not mean that these buildings "evolved" from each other. They are constructed separately by using common materials. The same is true for living beings as well.

 

Life did not originate as a result of unconscious coincidences as evolution claims, but as the result of the creation of God, the Almighty, the owner of infinite knowledge and wisdom.

Source: www.harunyahya.com

[Ariadne]

Baashi: arguing on a side I'm against dosen't work! so... I suppose your right...

 

Che: very informative

[Matkey]

Originally posted by S.O.S:

He insisted humans are animals and do primitive things that animals are only known for doing such as making tools and resolving conflicts.

Can animals resolve conflict? If they are, then, the implication is that they meet the criteria to be human. I am saying this because resolving conflict requires reasoning. I understand that animals do make tools for their survival the same way humans do. But I need to know whether animals are capable of resolving their differences. As some of the brothers already stated, the mind is the distinguishing mark b/n humans and animals.

 

I deviated from the discussion to know whether animals can resolve their conflict

 

Thanks,

[Ariadne]

Matkey: chimps have been known to resolve any conflict that will happen or underlying tension by offering their bum to the other chimps. Thus they can take their aggresssion out through sex.

 

^^ Thats how they resolve their violent tendecies. I thought it was a bit amusing not to mention funny .

[Matkey]

S.O.S, what can i say? i am stunned :eek: . it is very funny thanks for the input

[boycott]

SOS however similarities between man and animal are striking, we can't judge the man looking at the chimpanzé